Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Muhammad Nawaz And 5 Others vs The State'1991 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Alias Najja vs The State1991 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, wherein the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja sought post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in light of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. The Court examined the material witnesses produced by the Investigating Officer, who testified and supported their affidavits stating that the petitioner was not implicated in the occurrence. The learned counsel for the State conceded and could not oppose the bail plea given these statements. Holding in favor of the petitioner, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses categorically disown or state on oath that an accused is not involved in the crime, and the State does not oppose the same, the accused establishes a case for the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when material prosecution witnesses state on oath that he is not implicated in the occurrence?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the grant of bail by the Supreme Court?
- What is the effect of the State counsel's inability to oppose a bail plea based on favorable witness statements?
- Muhammad Nawaz Alias Muhammad And 6 Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir vs Haji Gul Zarin1991 MLD 817 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir Butt vs Shahid Ashraf Butt and 2 others-1991PCr.LJ 13 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasir and 5 others vs Messrs Golden Plastic (Pvt.) Limited1991 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasim and 2 others vs Executive Engineer, Shahkot Division1991 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naseer vs Sohail alias Dittu and another1991 MLD 2477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naseer vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naqi vs The State and 7 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board and others1991 MLD 2334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nadir vs The State1991 P C r. L J 4 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nabi vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi1991 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the determination of seniority between the petitioner, an Overseer, and the respondents, who were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Executive Engineers. The core legal question was whether seniority should be reckoned from the date of initial work-charged or ad hoc appointment, or from the date of regular appointment following approval by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner challenged a revised seniority list that placed the respondents above him, arguing that prior work-charged or ad hoc service was irrelevant for seniority purposes. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, upholding the revised seniority list. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the respondents, having been appointed as Assistant Engineers prior to the petitioner, were correctly granted seniority over him. The Court found the Tribunal's order equitable and dismissed the petition, effectively affirming that the date of appointment to the post, relative to other incumbents, remains a primary factor in determining seniority rankings in this context.
Questions settled- Can seniority be claimed based on service rendered on a work-charged or ad hoc basis?
- Is seniority determined from the date of regular appointment following Public Service Commission approval?
- Does an earlier appointment date as an Assistant Executive Engineer entitle an employee to seniority over an employee appointed later?
- Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani vs V.C. University of Engineering and Technology LahoreK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan Alias Janon vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2275 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani vs The Vicechancellor, University of Engineering & Technology and another1991 MLD 665 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq and another vs Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry and another1991 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over the ownership of a residential house. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an agreement of sale dated 7-1-1977 and subsequent sale-deeds executed in May 1979 by the owner. The first respondent claimed title under a sale-deed dated 30-4-1977, registered in June 1979. The trial court decreed the petitioners' suit, but the appellate court reversed it, holding that the first respondent's deed was executed earlier and that the registration of the petitioners' deeds was void as they were registered by a Sub-Registrar lacking territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that the first respondent failed to prove the execution of his deeds, as he only produced unauthenticated copies without calling the scribe or attesting witnesses, violating the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Court agreed that the registration of the petitioners' deeds was void under Section 28 of the Registration Act 1908 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, to prevent further litigation, the Court converted the petitioners' suit for declaration into one for specific performance of the validly executed agreement of sale, decreeing the suit in their favour subject to payment of court-fees.
Questions settled- Does a Sub-Registrar have the legal authority to register a document affecting immovable property situated entirely outside their territorial jurisdiction?
- Can a party rely on certified copies of a disputed sale-deed without proving its execution through primary evidence or attesting witnesses when execution is specifically denied?
- Can a court convert a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction into a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell to meet the ends of justice?
- Muhammad Musa Ansari and others vs Gul Sahib Jan Khattak and others1991 CLC 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Revision Application challenged an order passed by a Senior Civil Judge granting an ad interim injunction to maintain the status quo in a service dispute regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against an ad interim injunction order. The High Court held that an ad interim order, which effectively maintains the status quo for an indefinite period, constitutes a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C., thereby rendering it subject to revisional jurisdiction. The Court further held that the trial court acted arbitrarily by failing to apply the settled principles for granting temporary injunctions, specifically regarding the existence of a prima facie case, the nature of irreparable loss—which was merely monetary in this instance—and the balance of convenience. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the trial court ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the issuance of notice before granting injunctions against statutory authorities. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does an ad interim injunction order that maintains the status quo indefinitely constitute a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a revision application maintainable against an ad interim injunction order issued by a subordinate court?
- What are the essential factors a court must consider before granting a temporary injunction?
- Does the failure to comply with notice requirements under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an injunction order against a statutory authority arbitrary?
- Muhammad Munir vs Faiz Bakhsh And Other1991 SCMR 1914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had allowed a regular second appeal and restored a trial court's decree in a suit for perpetual injunction. The respondents had originally filed the suit to restrain the petitioner from interfering with their proprietary rights in land purchased from a third party. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, the District Judge subsequently allowed the petitioner's appeal. The High Court, however, reversed the District Judge's decision and restored the trial court's decree. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court acted illegally and ignored established legal precedents regarding the adjudication of such disputes. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention raised by the petitioner involved a question of public importance requiring further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered the provision of security for costs and permitted the parties to file additional documents for the upcoming hearing.
Questions settled- Does the High Court's reversal of a first appellate court's judgment in a suit for perpetual injunction involve a question of public importance?
- Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a High Court order in a regular second appeal?
- Muhammad Munir Ud Din And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir and 8 others Azad J&K 39 vs The State1991 PLD Azad J & K 39 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar vs Inspector-General of Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 543 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar vs Inspector-General of Police and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 551 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munawar vs General Manager (Personnel) Pakistan1991 PLC (C.S.) 773 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mumtaz Kanungo vs Deputy Commissioner_Collector, District Sargodha and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 306) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Mukhtar vs The State1991 P C r. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mujtaba Khan vs The Deputy Director, F.I.A. And Other1991 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, whereby the dismissal of the petitioner, an A.S.-I. in Grade-5, from service by the Deputy Director, Federal Investigation Agency, was upheld. The core legal question raised was whether the proceedings were vitiated because the Deputy Director was allegedly not the competent Authorized Officer to issue the show-cause notice under the applicable rules and Standing Order. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the competence of the Authorized Officer was not challenged before the Tribunal and no material was produced to substantiate that the Deputy Director lacked such authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the proceedings are vitiated if the show-cause notice is issued by an alleged incompetent authorized officer?
- Can a petitioner challenge the competence of an authorized officer for the first time without producing supporting evidence?
- Muhammad Meraj-Ud-Din vs Managing Director, P.I.A. Corporation1991 PLC (C.S.) 253 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maskeen vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maskeen vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Maqbool And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Manzoor and anothers vs Mst. Zeenat Begum1991 MLD 2150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Manzoor and another vs The State1991 PLD Azad J & K 70 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mansoob Butt vs Managing Director, Pakistan1991 SC M R1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal upholding his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The petitioner raised two primary legal contentions: firstly, that the charge-sheet failed to specify the exact punishment, mentioning only appropriate disciplinary action; and secondly, that he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, thereby prejudicing his defence, relying on Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government. The Supreme Court held, regarding the first ground, that referencing the rules prescribing punishments in the charge-sheet sufficiently satisfies legal requirements, as settled in Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi v. Service Tribunal. Regarding the second ground, the Court held that the supply of an enquiry report is not mandatory in every case, as clarified in Sarfraz v. General Manager (Leaf), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd., and noted that a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, which under service rules occurs only when a major penalty like dismissal is likely. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a charge-sheet fail to meet legal requirements if it specifies appropriate disciplinary action instead of a particular punishment?
- Is it mandatory to supply a copy of the enquiry report to an employee in every disciplinary case?
- Whether the failure to supply an enquiry report prejudices the defence of a civil servant who was granted a personal hearing for a major penalty?
- Muhammad Mansha vs The State1991 MLD 2413 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Malik And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif vs Javaid Iqbal And 3 Others1991 PCr.LJ 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Latif And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. LJ 910 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khurshid vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khursheed vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 680 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khuram vs Mian Muhammad Waqar1991 CLC 378 · Corporate Law Authority · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khawaja vs Bahadur And 25 Other1991 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding a consolidation of holdings dispute. The petitioner had initially failed before the Board of Revenue, which had restored the Collector's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The High Court had upheld this dismissal, citing both merits and the issue of limitation. Before the Supreme Court, the primary legal question concerned the limitation period and whether the High Court should have interfered with the discretionary findings of the lower revenue forums. The Supreme Court held that the determination of limitation in this context fell within the discretionary jurisdiction of the lower forums. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with this discretionary exercise. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal on the grounds that the lower forums' discretion regarding limitation was properly exercised and unexceptionable. The petition was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a discretionary finding of a lower revenue forum regarding the condonation of delay?
- Is the determination of limitation in a consolidation of holdings case considered a discretionary matter for the lower forums?
- Should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court has refused to interfere with a discretionary order of a lower forum?
- Muhammad Khawaja Hassan vs Karachi Development Authority1991 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1344 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan vs The State and others1991 MLD 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khan And 6 Others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima And 12 Other1991 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the High Court dated 29-07-1990. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration and possession, during which the petitioners sought to amend their written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. The trial court disallowed the amendment application, and the subsequent revision petition was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioners challenged these orders via a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation cannot be challenged through a writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the order was legal, proper, and raised no point of law. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The judgment reiterates the established principle that orders passed in civil revision proceedings by competent courts cannot be assailed or reopened by invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a revisional order arising out of civil litigation be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court?
- Whether an order disallowing an application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. upheld in revision can be assailed under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Khan And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalil vs Mst. Zahida Perveen and others1991 PLD Lahore 51 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appellate court's order dismissing the petitioner's family appeal for failure to pay ad valorem court-fee. The core legal question was whether court-fee is payable on a memorandum of appeal arising from a Family Court judgment where the subject-matter value is under twenty-five thousand rupees. The Lahore High Court held that although section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 restricts the Rs.15 court-fee to plaints and does not extend to appeals, the Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance, 1983 explicitly abolishes court-fee in any civil case where the subject-matter value does not exceed Rs.25,000, and this concession applies at all stages including appeals, since an appeal is a continuation of the suit. The Court ruled that Family Courts are civil courts adjudicating civil rights, and thus no court-fee was chargeable. The petition was accepted, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the appeal for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 applies to a memorandum of appeal as well as a plaint?
- Does the Punjab Court-Fee (Abolition) Ordinance, 1983 exempt civil cases of a specified value from court-fees at the appellate stage?
- Whether proceedings before a Family Court are of a civil nature involving the enforcement of civil rights?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to pay a court-fee when the subject-matter value does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees?
- Muhammad Khalil And Others vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1991 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a shop situated inside Bhati Gate, Lahore, by the Settlement Department to respondent Muhammad Iqbal, which was challenged by the petitioner Muhammad Khalil. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner qualified as being in lawful possession of the disputed property prior to the crucial date so as to be entitled to its transfer under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was merely a licensee and his occupation commenced after the crucial date of 20-12-1958, whereas the respondent established continuous possession since 1954. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings and transfer orders upheld by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a licensee whose occupation of a disputed property commences after the crucial statutory date is not entitled to its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.
Questions settled- Whether a licensee occupying a property after the crucial date is entitled to its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act?
- Can a person whose possession commences after 20-12-1958 legitimately object to the transfer of a shop in favour of a prior occupant?
- Muhammad Khalil And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 770 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Kareem vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 2 others1991 MLD 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jehangir Shahzad and another vs Commissioner of Income1991 PLC (C.S.) 975 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed before the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the promotion criteria for Income Tax Inspectors. The core legal question was whether the departmental promotion examination prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue was "competitive" in nature, where only the highest scorers are promoted, or "qualifying," where passing the exam merely establishes eligibility for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) based on seniority and fitness. The Tribunal held that the examination was strictly qualifying in nature. The court reasoned that the rules explicitly required the DPC to adjudge fitness and consider service records, which would be rendered redundant if the process were purely competitive based on marks. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the promotion orders that had ignored senior candidates solely due to lower examination marks. The key principle laid down is that where a promotion examination is defined as "qualifying," successful candidates must be considered for promotion based on their seniority and overall service record, rather than being excluded solely because other candidates achieved higher marks in the examination.
Questions settled- Is a departmental promotion examination that requires a minimum pass mark inherently competitive or qualifying in nature?
- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to review promotion orders where the authority failed to consider a candidate's seniority and fitness?
- Can a promotion order be set aside if it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the nature of the departmental promotion examination?
- Does the mere passing of a qualifying departmental examination entitle a civil servant to promotion as a matter of right?
- Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R. for Appellant. vs Sayed Amjad Hussain1991 PTD (Trib.) 802 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jehangir Khan, D.R. for Appellant. vs Muhammad Saeed Rana1991 PTD (Trib.) 812 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javid vs Shahid Saleem Sheikh and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the High Court's refusal to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings against a bank cashier charged with offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that he acted under the orders of his superiors and that the requisite sanction for prosecution was absent, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's findings were unexceptionable. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be stifled at the outset. It ruled that issues regarding the necessity of prosecution sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the determination of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) are matters of fact to be decided by the trial court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if sanction is required but absent, the trial court should allow reasonable time for its procurement before considering acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Should criminal proceedings be quashed at the outset when a question of prosecution sanction remains to be determined?
- Is the determination of whether a statement constitutes a formal First Information Report a matter for the trial court?
- What is the appropriate procedure for a trial court when prosecution sanction is required but has not been obtained?
- Can an accused rely on the orders of superiors to claim immunity from criminal liability?
- Muhammad Javed vs Hassan Muhammad And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed Sidiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1620 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed Khan vs Mst. Nousheen Bhatti and another1991 CLC 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Javed And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 886 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants, who were found guilty by the trial court for the murder of Nawab Din and a murderous assault on a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt when all key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the injured witness, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's version of events. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt, noting that the same evidence used to acquit the co-accused could not be selectively relied upon to convict the appellants. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of crime weapons unreliable and held that medical evidence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court applied the principle of benefit of doubt, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that where prosecution evidence is discredited and witnesses turn hostile, the accused is entitled to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can the same evidence used to acquit co-accused be relied upon to convict other appellants?
- Is medical evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
- What is the legal effect on a prosecution case when all key witnesses are declared hostile?
- Muhammad Javed Akhtar vs Collector and others1991 CLC 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil vs Muhammad Salim1991 MLD 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Khan vs Selection Committee for Engineering1991 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jameel Alias Teddi And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jalal Khan And 3 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue1991 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter. The core legal question concerned whether a party who allegedly agreed to the initial consolidation scheme possessed the right to challenge it subsequently in an appeal, and whether delay could be condoned in such proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Board of Revenue had properly dealt with the question of the challenge after admitting additional evidence, and the High Court had rightly applied its mind to the merits, finding the impugned orders unexceptionable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the validity of the revisional orders and the condonation of delay by the revenue authorities.
Questions settled- Whether a party who agreed to the initial scheme of consolidation has the right to challenge the same in appeal?
- Can the Board of Revenue condone delay and make adjustments in fields during consolidation proceedings?
- Are orders passed by the Board of Revenue in consolidation matters open to interference when the High Court has found them unexceptionable on merits?
- Muhammad Jaffar vs Shahid Mansoor Ahmad and another1991 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jafer Tarar vs The State1991PCr.LJ 916 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs The State1991 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs District Education Officer and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs (Mst) Sakina Bibi(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 34) · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Ghulam Haider1991 SCMR 1443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave examined whether the High Court correctly interpreted the precedent in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) to deny pre-emptors a decree for the entire land despite holding them entitled to it. The original dispute arose from sales of agricultural land via mutations in favor of the first vendee, who subsequently resold a one-third share to subsequent vendees prior to the institution of pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that the decision in Sardar Ali's case does not bar the grant of relief resulting in an increase of area or share, provided the right to pre-empt was recognized, and that a truncated resale of a portion of the property to subsequent vendees cannot defeat the pre-emptor's claim as it divides an indivisible sale and associates strangers. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and decreed the pre-emption suits in respect of the entire land upon the condition of depositing the balance of the price.
Questions settled- Does the rule in Sardar Ali's case preclude the grant of relief resulting in an increase of area or share to a pre-emptor whose right has been recognized?
- Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption claim by reselling only a portion of the purchased property to a subsequent vendee having a superior right?
- Does a resale of a portion of property in favor of subsequent vendees amount to dividing an indivisible sale under pre-emption law?
- Muhammad Ismail Memon vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and others vs The State1991 MLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1991 CLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and another vs General Manager/Personnel1991 PLC 104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and 2 others vs Muhammad Din1991 CLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 106 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaque In re Petition for the Grant of Letters of Administration in Respect of Immovable and Movable Properties vs Not1991 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1836 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1991 MLD 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs Ch. Fazal Haq And 5 Other1991 SCMR 2149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a pre-emption dispute between rival pre-emptors where the petitioner failed to deposit the pre-emption amount within the time specified by the trial court, resulting in the loss of his success. The High Court dismissed his revision, leading to the present appeal. The core legal question was whether an Appellate Court, while dismissing an appeal in a pre-emption matter, is obligated to grant the pre-emptor reasonable time to deposit the pre-emption money, and under what circumstances this discretion may be refused. The Supreme Court held that while an Appellate Court has the discretion to refuse the extension of time in exceptional cases—such as where a pre-emptor lacks funds or is merely stalling—it is generally bound to grant reasonable time for the deposit of the pre-emption amount. The Court clarified that this obligation exists even in the absence of a specific application for interim relief. Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the refusal of time, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the appellant ten days to make the necessary deposit.
Questions settled- Is an Appellate Court bound to grant reasonable time to a pre-emptor to deposit the pre-emption amount while dismissing an appeal?
- Under what circumstances can an Appellate Court refuse to grant reasonable time for the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Does the failure to file an appeal in one's own case preclude the Appellate Court from granting an extension of time for deposit when the subject matter is under appellate adjudication?
- Muhammad Irshad and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan vs Abdul Rehman And Other1991 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had declined to set aside the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court. The petitioner alleged that his brother was murdered by the respondents in the house of one of the respondents. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a single eye-witness, whose testimony was discarded by both the trial court and the High Court due to his delayed statement, lack of immediate reporting, and distant residence. Additionally, the trial court accepted the defence version that the deceased was killed while criminally assaulting a woman. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appraisal of evidence by the lower courts was conducted in its true perspective and that there was no basis for a re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness who fails to report the occurrence immediately and remains silent for a month can be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in an appeal against an acquittal?
- Does the acceptance of a plausible defence version by concurrent findings of lower courts preclude the interference of the Supreme Court in a criminal petition for leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1991 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, which had resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine, subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of guilt by the courts below based on ocular testimony warranted interference and whether the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation or accidental fire during a scuffle was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on natural eye-witness accounts were unexceptionable and did not warrant reappraisal of evidence, thereby dismissing the petition for acquittal. However, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on reliable eyewitness testimony will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court absent a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence after concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the period spent in custody during trial?
- Whether the defence plea of accidental fire during a scuffle can override consistent eye-witness testimony?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 796 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs The Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Admn.), Naval1991 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a former employee of the Military Accounts Department who later joined the Naval Headquarters, challenged an order reverting him from the post of Superintendent to Assistant. In his appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner treated a letter from the Military Accountant General (Respondent No. 2) as an appellate order, which the Tribunal relied upon to calculate the limitation period. The petitioner later contended that this characterization was a mistake, as Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction over him, and that his departmental appeal to the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Respondent No. 1) remained undisposed of. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to determine whether the Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the service appeal on limitation grounds by treating the letter from Respondent No. 2 as an appellate order, given the petitioner's assertion that the departmental appeal to the competent authority was still pending.
Questions settled- Can a letter from an authority lacking jurisdiction over an employee be treated as an appellate order for the purpose of computing the limitation period for a service appeal?
- Is a service appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable if the departmental appeal to the competent authority remains undisposed of?
- Does the mischaracterization of a letter as an appellate order by a petitioner before the Tribunal preclude them from challenging the limitation finding on appeal?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Station House Officer and another1991 PLD Lahore 418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1991 PLC 21 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Reshman Bibi1991 SCMR 2520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit concerning the ownership and redemption of a house in Gujrat City, originally evacuee property. The respondent, having mortgaged the property to the appellant in 1960, challenged a subsequent 1966 sale deed as a forgery. The trial court found the sale deed to be a forgery and decreed the suit, allowing the respondent to redeem the mortgage. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the mortgage deed stipulated a 40-year redemption period, which had not yet expired. The Supreme Court examined whether the 40-year term was enforceable. The Court held that the 40-year period was unconscionable and harsh, particularly given that the mortgagor was a female, suggesting she had been inveigled into an unfair agreement. Relying on the principle established in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1), the Court ruled that the condition restricting redemption was unenforceable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions to allow redemption despite the unexpired term.
Questions settled- Can a mortgage deed clause imposing a 40-year redemption period be declared unconscionable and unenforceable?
- Is a sale deed found to be a forgery valid for transferring property ownership?
- Does the court have the authority to permit mortgage redemption before the expiry of a fixed term if that term is deemed unfair?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Resham Bibi1991 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a dispute over a house in Gujrat City originally transferred to the respondent as evacuee property. The respondent mortgaged the property with possession to the petitioner in 1960 and allegedly sold it to the petitioner via a sale-deed in 1966. In 1984, the respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that she remained the owner, that the sale-deed was a forged document, and seeking possession upon payment of the mortgage amount. The trial court found the sale-deed to be a forgery and decreed the suit, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that under the terms of the genuine mortgage deed, redemption could not occur before the expiry of forty years, rendering the order to surrender possession prior to that period illegal. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and granted leave to appeal, ordering maintenance of status quo regarding possession during the appeal's pendency.
Questions settled- Can a mortgaged property be redeemed before the expiry of the stipulated period mentioned in the mortgage deed?
- Whether a suit for declaration and possession is maintainable when a sale-deed is found to be a forgery?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Manzoor and 10 others1991 MLD 859 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Fazal Elahi And Other1991 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding a pre-emption claim against him. The core legal question was whether a vendee whose share was distinctly mentioned in the sale mutation could claim protection against a pre-emption suit merely by associating with a co-vendee who held a certificate as a Mangla Dam Oustee entitled to statutory exemption. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not benefit from the exemption of his co-vendee where his own share was distinct and he possessed no superior or equal right against the pre-emptor on merits. The court established the principle that association with an exempt co-vendee in a sale transaction does not extend statutory protection to a non-exempt co-vendee whose individual share is separately identifiable.
Questions settled- Whether a co-vendee without an independent exemption can benefit from the statutory protection of another co-vendee who is a Mangla Dam Oustee?
- Does the distinct specification of shares in a sale mutation prevent a non-exempt vendee from claiming the protection attached to an exempt co-vendee?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and 21991 CLC 131 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Nasim vs Mrs. Seema Shamim and others1991 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 3 others vs The Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan arose from a Service Tribunal judgment upholding an order of the Governor of Punjab under Section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Governor had relaxed rules to grant respondent No. 2—a 1975 direct recruit Assistant Engineer—retrospective seniority over the 1974 batch of directly recruited Assistant Engineers by counting his prior Army service, while also granting him pay, pension, and promotion eligibility benefits. The appellants challenged the grant of retrospective seniority, contending that seniority is a vested right under the Punjab Act and cannot be destroyed by discretionary relaxation. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that while Section 22 allows relaxation of rules for just and equitable treatment, it is constrained by parameters of justice and fairness and cannot be exercised to retrospectively affect or destroy the vested seniority rights of other civil servants. Consequently, the order granting retrospective seniority was declared ultra vires Section 22, whereas benefits regarding pay, pension, and promotion eligibility were upheld.
Questions settled- Does seniority constitute a vested right under Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Can the Governor exercise discretionary power under Section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to retrospectively alter seniority to the detriment of other civil servants?
- What are the legal boundaries and parameters of the phrase 'just and equitable' under Section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Can prior military service be counted towards civil service seniority in relaxation of service rules if it destroys the accrued seniority rights of earlier direct recruits?